Support NeoGAF

[beast786]

And ship a US citizen to Guatemala to live in poverty. You're welcome!

Exactly.


I would have rather been adopted by a king then being raised by my blue collar working parents. Wealth>>Family

USA

 

[YoungHav]

Only option is to give the child back to the stranger that birthed him, send them packing to Guatemala to go back to the woman's other kids she left behind where I'm sure they'll be joined by some more children she can't afford.

:lol how self-righteous and ignorant of you. Just because a nation is "poor" doesn't mean everyone is living in filth and squalor on the streets. How do you know she can't afford more children?

Where I live there are plenty of illegal immigrants who have left their kids back home with relatives and are working their asses off. Back home they just happened to grow up in a countryside farm and have had to do physical labor since youth instead of getting a full education. It is hard to move up in class in any country (education helps but as said before not everyone has that opportunity), so they see sneaking into the U.S. as something to make $$$ for their families i.e. why should I make X amount of $ doing a menial job and just get by when I can sneak into the US and make 20x the amount for my family?. Is it a crime? yeah... but morally it is inconsequential. And it's not like immigration laws here have been fair to non-Western European people through out this country's history. Suck it up.

Like bringing the child illegally into the US without any concern of the long term implications. Real family planning there. But the dad stole property! He MUST beat his kids! Oh and the mother's family abuses people! Surely she will starve and beat the kid!

Uhhh I think drug use, gta, high speed chases are worse crimes than crossing a border illegally. As mentioned before the law the mother was locked up on was deemed unconstitutional. A lot of illegals are given the means for employment (false documents, fake or stolen SSN's) by their traffickers, they don't necessarily know whats in them or how they were procured. This is probably part of the reasons why traffickers are punished more than the people they smuggle. The only leg you idiots have to stand on are "but but but, she's Guatemalan!".

Why is it assumed that the "adoptive parents" are this perfect, "suburban" (code word), white picket fence couple? Because they're white?

:lol you saw right through the fools in this thread. I'm so glad their racism backfired on them when more facts came out.

 

[Zoe]

Uhhh I think drug use, gta, high speed chases are worse crimes than crossing a border illegally. As mentioned before the law the mother was locked up on was deemed unconstitutional. A lot of illegals are given the means for employment (false documents, fake or stolen SSN's) by their traffickers, they don't necessarily know whats in them or how they were procured. This is probably part of the reasons why traffickers are punished more than the people they smuggle. The only leg you idiots have to stand on are "but but but, she's Guatemalan!".


:lol you saw right through the fools in this thread. I'm so glad their racism backfired on them when more facts came out.

Well I'm glad we have more facts about her now. Like how she had been deported previously, failed to give authorities her true identity, failed to ensure care for her son once she was incarcerated, and was raising her son in sub-standard conditions even before that (which probably would have been grounds for protective services to step in if she had been on the books).

 

[YoungHav]

Well I'm glad we have more facts about her now. Like how she had been deported previously (and? so do a lot of deportees), failed to give authorities her true identity, failed to ensure care for her son once she was incarcerated (she left them in the care of family IIRC), and was raising her son in sub-standard conditions even before that (which probably would have been grounds for protective services to step in if she had been on the books).

Keep making things up. And even if your write up was 100% accurate, something would be extremely wrong with you if you think she should lose her own child under the circumstances of this case.

 

[Zoe]

Keep making things up.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/a36161d04a09d5fe862577a1005d6969/$FILE/SC91141_Adoptive_Parents_brief.pdf

When jailed, and at various other times, she claimed that she was “Angelica Alvarado” or something similar. Federal charges were filed against her, and she was known, as “Angelica Alvarado-Romero.” She also called herself both “Angelica Alvarado” and “Maria Bail Encarnacion Romero” in a letter to the guardian ad litem, but she signed her signature as “Encarnacion Maria Bail Romero.” In a letter to Respondents’ attorney, she called herself “Angelica Alvarado.”

Davenport visited Appellant and the Child at that apartment seven days after the birth. The conditions there were “very poor.” Appellant had no bed for herself and no crib for the Child, so she slept on the floor with him. Davenport got her a crib.

Davenport next saw the Child after Appellant moved in with her brother’s family, whom Davenport visited in the PAT program. Those home conditions were also poor. The Child seemed week and developmentally delayed. Appellant had not obtained governmental services such as WIC, and so the Child, some 2-3 months old, was not getting proper nutrition through formula because she gave him “milk—plain, whole milk.” He was behind on immunizations, was slow both to sit up and to crawl for his age, had trouble supporting his head, and had underdeveloped muscles.

Appellant was arrested May 22, 2007. The Child stayed with Appellant’s brother only a few days before the brother, who could not care for him, took the Child to live with Appellant’s sister. The Child lived with the sister by late May. Davenport therefore saw the Child again, this time in the one-bedroom apartment that housed Appellant’s sister’s
family. Those conditions were “a little better” than at the previous two apartments.
At the sister’s request, initially the Velazcos provided daytime childcare, but that lasted only a couple of weeks. The sister then left the Child to sleep at the Velazcos’ home, and her husband would get him on Friday for the weekend. Then it became “less and less where he would pick him up maybe just on Sunday for a couple of hours or maybe less.” The Velazcos soon became essentially a full-time placement. By then, Appellant was “no longer in the picture.”
Davenport last saw Appellant on September 9, 2007, in the St. Clair County Jail. She visited the jail to ask whether Appellant would consent to termination of her parental rights and adoption of the Child. Although the Child had not been with the brother for over three months, Appellant was “quite surprised” to learn that her brother had not kept him. Appellant claimed not to know that her sister had given the Child to the Velazcos.

(notations removed for readability)

And even if your write up was 100% accurate, something would be extremely wrong with you if you think she should lose her own child under the circumstances of this case.

Sorry, I have little sympathy for people who cannot take or provide proper care for their children.

 

[Stumpokapow]

And I see you as a fucking idiot. It doesn't matter who can give the child a better future. Its her child and no matter what, she deserves to have him. Now crawl back from the hole you came out of hiding you fatass. Know your place retard.

Seeya!

I haven't had a chance to go through the entire thread with the kind of precision that I normally would, but it was called to my attention that this kind of posting was going on. This is not okay. Heated debate is fine and we normally let users get away with a little bit of insulting even though we don't encourage it--the Ogrekiller post that Outlaw quoted is starting to push it. But a post like this is very clearly just violent, angry, insulting rage. It's not a productive post and it's not a part of a good conversation.

If you feel like you're going to make a post like this, just don't. Walk away from the thread a little while or put the other poster on ignore or address their points sincerely, but don't post like this.

When I'm done reading the thread specifically I'll try to make some recommendations about how people might enjoy a more productive discussion on such a heated issue :/

 

[numble]

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/a36161d04a09d5fe862577a1005d6969/$FILE/SC91141_Adoptive_Parents_brief.pdf









(notations removed for readability)



Sorry, I have little sympathy for people who cannot take or provide proper care for their children.

Have you read all the briefs? The Mother's brief and reply brief? The focus of the initial termination judgment? You know that briefs embellish and exaggerate points to make the other side look bad, right?

The Velazco's have basically been discredited because they 1) posed as clergy to obtain the baby and 2) somehow found the Mosers (who happen to be sterile) who were willing to take him

You seem to continually focus on character flaws of the mother, while ignoring that of the adoptive parents, I could also dismissive them with selective quotes from the other briefs, and say: "Sorry, I have little sympathy for people who kidnap babies."

 

[Zoe]

Have you read all the briefs? The Mother's reply brief? You know that briefs embellish and exaggerate points to make the other side look bad, right? The Velazco's have basically been discredited because they 1) posed as clergy to obtain the baby and 2) somehow found the Mosers (who happen to be sterile) who were willing to take him

Those statements came from Laura Davenport, who was in the picture before the Velazcos.

But no, I haven't seen the other brief. Link?

 

[numble]

Those statements came from Laura Davenport, who was in the picture before the Velazcos.

But no, I haven't seen the other brief. Link?

Mother's brief:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/a36161d04a09d5fe862577a1005d6969/$FILE/SC91141_Mother_brief.pdf
Mother's reply brief:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/a36161d04a09d5fe862577a1005d6969/$FILE/SC91141_Mother_reply_brief.pdf

There is zero evidence that she failed to give authorities her true identity, and they have the Plea Agreement that she signed with ICE as evidence.

I don't know why you focus on the deportation thing so much--the next time she comes to America (if she does) would be on a valid green card (which she could probably still get even if the Missouri Supreme Court reinstates the adoption that was declared illegal), so it should be as moot in your eyes as past history of assaulting police and doing hard drugs.

Also, if you are going to selectively quote court briefs, make sure you read all the briefs, and everything in them, including the legal arguments, not just the parts that you find interest in. The facts surrounding illegal manipulation of procedures, due process, and consent to obtain an illegal adoption may not be as sexy as someone getting arrested for working on a poultry farm, but they are just as relevant to the case.

 

[numble]

To flesh out the clergymen and fake attorney issue, this is how it went down:

Missouri statutes say that clergymen of the parents may put up a child for adoption:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4530000014.HTM

453.014. 1. The following persons may place a minor for adoption:

(1) The division of family services of the department of social services;

(2) A child placing agency licensed pursuant to sections 210.481 to 210.536;

(3) The child's parents, without the direct or indirect assistance of an intermediary, in the home of a relative of the child within the third degree;

(4) An intermediary, which shall include an attorney licensed pursuant to chapter 484; a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 334; or a clergyman of the parents.

The Velazcos posed as clergy (they are not affiliated with any church or religious organization) and said they'll take care of the baby from the baby's aunt and uncle.

They somehow randomly find the Mosers (who happen to be sterile) and offer the baby to them.

The attorney that the Mosers hired for the mother tells the adoption court that the mother voluntarily gave up custody of the baby to her clergy (which there is no evidence), and the Mosers say that the adoption should proceed under this clergy exception above.

There's also other legal issues, but this is just the clergy one.

 

[YoungHav]

^^ but but but she crossed da border!

:lol Father Ashby read this case for his role.

 

[Dead Man]

To flesh out the clergymen and fake attorney issue, this is how it went down:

Missouri statutes say that clergymen of the parents may put up a child for adoption:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4530000014.HTM


The Velazcos posed as clergy (they are not affiliated with any church or religious organization) and said they'll take care of the baby from the baby's aunt and uncle.

They somehow randomly find the Mosers (who happen to be sterile) and offer the baby to them.

The attorney that the Mosers hired for the mother tells the adoption court that the mother voluntarily gave up custody of the baby to her clergy (which there is no evidence), and the Mosers say that the adoption should proceed under this clergy exception above.

There's also other legal issues, but this is just the clergy one.

Wow. That seems so open to abuse.

 

[nib95]

I personally think the child should go back to the mother. The family can adopt another child, which is a noble thing to do any way. But don't deprive someone of their own flesh and blood, not when the baby is still only two and can re-adjust.

 

[Effect]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/20/missouri.immigrant.child/index.html?hpt=C2






More in link...

I am really torn on this. Is it fair to the biological parent to have her child just taken away from her? On the other hand, is it fair to the child to be uprooted from the only family he's ever known?

Not really a torn situation I think. The baby was stolen from her and given to another set of parents pure and simple. Doesn't matter if that's the only family he's known, he was given to them via illegal means. He isn't theirs but belongs to his biological mother.

 

[JGS]

Not really a torn situation I think. The baby was stolen from her and given to another set of parents pure and simple. Doesn't matter if that's the only family he's known, he was given to them via illegal means. He isn't theirs but belongs to his biological mother.

I'm still not sure why this is a controversy.

If we replaced this location with the child growing up in any impoverished inner city neighborhood, it would not be getting the same attention.

On second thought, it does remind me of the judge in Chicago that adopted a kid and the mother wanted it back. However, public opinion was clearly not in her favor.

 

[numble]

Wow. That seems so open to abuse.

Not directly related, but you should read up on the history behind the Indian Child Welfare Act.

 

[krypt0nian]

Why the fuck are people who are so poor that they need to commit crimes to support their kids having children in the first place?

Talk about unfit parenting.

 

[Kunan]

This thread is brutal. The baby was taken away from her, when she did not commit a crime where that is the punishment. It sucks for the adoptive parents, but they need to give the baby back. It is not theirs to adopt, nor anyone else's to give away. The arguing over better life needs to stop now, as that would set a horrendously slippery legal precedent.

 

[Sirpopopop]

The "better life," argument is the same type of logic and reasoning that lead to the Stolen Generations in Australia.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Why the fuck are people who are so poor that they need to commit crimes to support their kids having children in the first place?

Talk about unfit parenting.

Not that I necessarily disagree, but you do realize that if they stopped like 75%, if not more, of Africa and South America would be extinct within like 100 years.

 

[Dead Man]

Not directly related, but you should read up on the history behind the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Sadly similar to the Stolen Generations here in Australia.

Why the fuck are people who are so poor that they need to commit crimes to support their kids having children in the first place?

Talk about unfit parenting.

High infant mortality, + Catholicism/Catholic influence + poverty = lots of kids. Not really her fault.

 

[crazygambit]

She didn't care about her son when she broke the law.

Really? So we start taking kids away from parents for minor violations? What's next, get a speeding ticket and they take away your kids?

This sets a dangerous precedent. I see no solution other than to give back the child to his mother, even though it'll be hell for the adoptive parents.

 

[SmokyDave]

Child + Mother - Back to Guatemala.

Adoptive Parents - Investigated regarding the surroundings of this adoption and then, pending outcome, they can either re-apply or be prohibited from re-applying for another child.

Simple.

 

[Sanjay]

Child + Mother - Back to Guatemala.

Adoptive Parents - Investigated regarding the surroundings of this adoption and then, pending outcome, they can either re-apply or be prohibited from re-applying for another child.

Simple.

Baby is a US citizen so you can't because he has rights, which the mother has none because she was born in Guatemala.

 

[SmokyDave]

Baby is a US citizen so you can't because he has rights, which the mother has none because she was born in Guatemala.

Then soon he'll be a dual citizen. Free to visit / relocate to the US whenever he pleases. The mother is welcome to apply for residence through the correct channels although I don't fancy her chances.

 

[Azih]

The "better life," argument is the same type of logic and reasoning that lead to the Stolen Generations in Australia.

And The Residential School tragedies in Canada.

 

[JGS]

Baby is a US citizen so you can't because he has rights, which the mother has none because she was born in Guatemala.

Dual citizenship. He can come back to America at will when he's old enough.

It still doesn't change the fact he was illegally/incorrectly gotten to begin with. The worst case scenario is he is put back into foster care to be adopted legitimately.

 

[VelvetMouth]

:lol how self-righteous and ignorant of you. Just because a nation is "poor" doesn't mean everyone is living in filth and squalor on the streets. How do you know she can't afford more children?

She's so financially stable and able to support more children that she had to leave her other children behind to be raised by family so that she can yet again enter into the country illegally to work in a chicken factory.

You're right, how ignorant of me to think her situation in life is not suitable to throw more children into the mix.

 

[Lesath]

Why the fuck are people who are so poor that they need to commit crimes to support their kids having children in the first place?

Talk about unfit parenting.

Are we seriously bringing this to the table? There are two reasons off the top of my head why. First, a lot of those living in poverty have had access to very little general education. Educated women, in particular, have less children. Secondly, having many children is a good strategy when mortality is high, and when they too can help rake in the household bread and butter. Chances are, your great grandparents did the same damn thing.

 

[YoungHav]

^^ Exactly. To add to that, poor people like sex too (who would have thought?) but half the posters here are still virgins so...

"OH NO! Poor people are having children!" GAF can be so idiotic sometimes.

She's so financially stable and able to support more children that she had to leave her other children behind to be raised by family so that she can yet again enter into the country illegally to work in a chicken factory.

You're right, how ignorant of me to think her situation in life is not suitable to throw more children into the mix.

Dude, what is your point really? Her children are being taken care of back home with family. She came here to make money and -gasp- had the sex and a kid along with it.

So what's your solution? Poor people shouldn't have sex? I have more respect for this woman actually trying to make something of herself than you self-righteous folks who have had the world handed to you and are getting so angry over "OMG da Illegulz!" behind a computer monitor. Reality check, how about white people didn't initially come into this country all too legally either? I believe there was a genocide, a nation was established (because there wasn't nations on this land before hand apparently), whites had no hurdles getting into this country for decades but once the undesirables started coming in, let's start implementing new hurdles called "immigration" and not apply it proportionally across the board to all the groups wanting to get in. A bit silly for the crybabies to get all fired up over people coming into this country to make a living.

 

[SmokyDave]

^^ Exactly. To add to that, poor people like sex too (who would have thought?) but half the posters here are still virgins so...

What's the point in this shit? You have no fucking idea what the sex lives of 3000 people entail so why pretend?

As for the rest, immigration laws exist. Like it or not, they exist. Saying 'bu bu but evil white people stole the land in the first place!' is useless, counter-productive and ignores the reality of this situation, at this time. You seem to expect the authorities to turn a blind eye to this woman purely because you feel sorry for her.

Unless you're basically saying that you believe the US border should be completely open in which case I understand your comment but I think you're insane.

 

[YoungHav]

What's the point in this shit? You have no fucking idea what the sex lives of 3000 people entail so why pretend?

As for the rest, immigration laws exist. Like it or not, they exist. Saying 'bu bu but evil white people stole the land in the first place!' is useless, counter-productive and ignores the reality of this situation, at this time. You seem to expect the authorities to turn a blind eye to this woman purely because you feel sorry for her.

Unless you're basically saying that you believe the US border should be completely open in which case I understand your comment but I think you're insane.

I don't believe in open borders. What I don't get though is the animus towards illegals, and the folks that display such hateful attitudes seem really suspect. It's one thing to think that immigration laws should be respected, it's another to think that this woman should lose her kid or doesn't deserve human rights because she's an illegal (as some geniuses in this thread have suggested), even in the face of her incarceration being unconstitutional.

and now the "poor folks shouldn't have kids" meme :lol . Too much fail in this thread.

And sorry dude, go take a US immigration law course at any institution worth their weight and they will bring up the country's discriminatory implementation of immigration laws through out its history. It's not like some of the animus in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with race.

 

[JGS]

And sorry dude, go take a US immigration law course at any institution worth their weight and they will bring up the country's discriminatory implementation of immigration laws through out its history. It's not like some of the animus in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with race.

If a Guatemalan rocket scientist brain surgeon wanted to come to the country, they would probably have a good shot at entering.

If a person who doesn't know the language, has no discernable skill, & overall can't contribute to society at large and actually drains resources, then they have a tougher shot as should be the case. Race is less an issue than ability, or for a more negative viewpoint, class.

In short, the US doesn't really want more poverty stricken people since there's plenty of US citizens in that boat. I can't imagine any country wanting that, including Guatemala.

 

[Exano]

She risked both her own and his welfare by breaking the law. There are many ways to survive in the world without breaking the law. She was an irresponsible parent and she lost her kid, I'd love to feel sympathy for the biological mother. The kid is much better off with the family that raised him, and can provide for him without risking his well being.

I'm sorry, maybe in a first world country theres an ability to do that. If your coming from a shack hole in the wall and have an opportunity to work in a free country that will provide a better life for your child (She was willing to WORK, which is more than I can say about a good portion of Americans who were born here) then you should be allowed.

This is assinine. She didnt commit robbery, she didn't steal money, she used a fake SSN so that she could WORK for her child.

By "endangering the welfare" she took her child out of a violent, corrupt and extremely poor country to try and make a better life for him. And he got taken away from her as a result of this. And all of it would not have happened because the law is unconstitutional.

Do you people (Who are Americans) forget where we came from? We're a country of immigrants, who came here to WORK FOR A BETTER WAY OF LIFE.

Come on guys, this was America 101. And we're punishing people for this now. And whats more, people are cheering at this! *Sigh*

If she wasn't willing to work, and she wasn't willing to do anything except try and mooch off of america, which is apparently what most people think all immigrants do, I'd see your points. But she wasn't. She went to work, she did what she needed to do. she wasn't being a drain :|

 

[excelforward]

Soooo not true.

edit: not a religious thing it should be noted. Fine if the mother was unfit or something but she was trying to earn a living (probably to support her child). I hope the boy, and those involved realise that he will only ever have one biological mother and that any othr bond he forms with any other family simply will not be the same.

So, what you're saying is that in many cases, adoption is bad for the children because they can't 'Form the bond' with a parent that isn't their own. From the friend I know who was adopted at a young age, he has no desire to get to know his biological parent as to him they aren't his real parents. Biology has little to nothing to do with parenthood.

 

[Azih]

In short, the US doesn't really want more poverty stricken people

"Give me your tired, your poor,. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"?

 

[ShinNL]

Seeya!

I haven't had a chance to go through the entire thread with the kind of precision that I normally would, but it was called to my attention that this kind of posting was going on. This is not okay. Heated debate is fine and we normally let users get away with a little bit of insulting even though we don't encourage it--the Ogrekiller post that Outlaw quoted is starting to push it. But a post like this is very clearly just violent, angry, insulting rage. It's not a productive post and it's not a part of a good conversation.

If you feel like you're going to make a post like this, just don't. Walk away from the thread a little while or put the other poster on ignore or address their points sincerely, but don't post like this.

When I'm done reading the thread specifically I'll try to make some recommendations about how people might enjoy a more productive discussion on such a heated issue :/

On one side I agree with you, Outlaw's post was clearly out of line, but on the other side you probably made Ogrekiller dance in joy by banning Outlaw. Indirectly you encouraged people to insult others as condescending retards and get away with it.

Not trying to backside mod, but I did feel like that should be noted.

 

[Lonely1]

If a Guatemalan rocket scientist brain surgeon wanted to come to the country, they would probably have a good shot at entering.

If a person who doesn't know the language, has no discernable skill, & overall can't contribute to society at large and actually drains resources, then they have a tougher shot as should be the case. Race is less an issue than ability, or for a more negative viewpoint, class.

In short, the US doesn't really want more poverty stricken people since there's plenty of US citizens in that boat. I can't imagine any country wanting that, including Guatemala.

From where I'm sitting, there seems to be a high demand for unskilled workers willing to work hard for sub-minimum wages in the USA atm.

 

[JGS]

From where I'm sitting, there seems to be a high demand for unskilled workers willing to work hard for sub-minimum wages in the USA atm.

As with any country, as long as they stay illegal, they don't cost the companies using them money fine wise, & remain cheap to employ then they will always be welcome.

From a US immigration standpoint, these are the worst ones to come over.

It's almost an iverse relationship since the US professional may not want a foreign born professional coming over to steal a "good" job either, but that's who the US wants to bring over.

 

[Ogrekiller]

At least Outlaw was kind enough to sum up the opposition's arguments in the way I view them.

It doesn't matter who can give the child a better future. Its her child and no matter what, she deserves to have him.

But leaving the kid with a mother that unintentionally treats him like this:

Davenport visited Appellant and the Child at that apartment seven days after the birth. The conditions there were “very poor.” Appellant had no bed for herself and no crib for the Child, so she slept on the floor with him. Davenport got her a crib.

Davenport next saw the Child after Appellant moved in with her brother’s family, whom Davenport visited in the PAT program. Those home conditions were also poor. The Child seemed week and developmentally delayed. Appellant had not obtained governmental services such as WIC, and so the Child, some 2-3 months old, was not getting proper nutrition through formula because she gave him “milk—plain, whole milk.” He was behind on immunizations, was slow both to sit up and to crawl for his age, had trouble supporting his head, and had underdeveloped muscles.

is so much better. But wait, that can't be true, the Evil White People made that all up to make their case look better. Their briefs can't be trusted! But look at our briefs! We can prove they stole children!

And just to show that Ms Bail can give her kid a better life, we'll deport her back to a violent, corrupt and extremely poor country so that she can raise 3 children by herself! Take that! Surely that's far better than what 2 middle class criminal whites can do. But hey, just because a nation is "poor" doesn't mean everyone is living in filth and squalor on the streets, right?

 

[Vicetrailia]

I'm sorry, maybe in a first world country theres an ability to do that. If your coming from a shack hole in the wall and have an opportunity to work in a free country that will provide a better life for your child (She was willing to WORK, which is more than I can say about a good portion of Americans who were born here) then you should be allowed.

This is assinine. She didnt commit robbery, she didn't steal money, she used a fake SSN so that she could WORK for her child.

By "endangering the welfare" she took her child out of a violent, corrupt and extremely poor country to try and make a better life for him. And he got taken away from her as a result of this. And all of it would not have happened because the law is unconstitutional.

Do you people (Who are Americans) forget where we came from? We're a country of immigrants, who came here to WORK FOR A BETTER WAY OF LIFE.

Come on guys, this was America 101. And we're punishing people for this now. And whats more, people are cheering at this! *Sigh*

If she wasn't willing to work, and she wasn't willing to do anything except try and mooch off of america, which is apparently what most people think all immigrants do, I'd see your points. But she wasn't. She went to work, she did what she needed to do. she wasn't being a drain :|

Thankyou for this post. The world is more than just money and no money, good gracious.

 

[JGS]

Thankyou for this post. The world is more than just money and no money, good gracious.

But he's wrong almost completely.

It wasn't robbery, it was much worse. It was fraud.

The US is a nation of immigrants that became citizens.

The US's problem with their lazy citizens has nothing to do with allowing another country's citizens free access to the jobs the US worker does not want. There is still a process that needs to be followed. Should it be more laxed? Sure. Should there not be one or one that involves fake ID's? Absolutely not.

The lady is in the mess she's in, not because of immigration law, but because she's a criminal and a person that never felt it was necessary to actually understand the process that caused someone to take her kid.

She should have her kid back, but that doesn't mean she should stay in the US to provide for it.

So the lady loves her kid like 99% of the world. Whoopee. That's no excuse to figure out the "safest" ways to break the law and avoid paying for it.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Avoid what? She will rightfully get her kid back and then get deported back to her country.

There are no issues here.

 

[JGS]

Avoid what? She will rightfully get her kid back and then get deported back to her country.

There are no issues here.

Bad wording. I'm not talking about her particular case. I'm arguing with the idea that somehow, because it wasn't robbery, it wasn't a crime. She deserved 2 years and could have gotten 5 plus fines.

I've already stated many times that she should get the kid as the crime didn't warrant it being taken away. If I'm wrong & it did warrant it, it still should been done legally.

It's a silly idea to suggest that illegal immigration and the use of fraud are somehow completely harmless and even beneficial to the identity of the host nation.

They're not. Still doesn't mean the lady shouldn't get her kid and head back to Guatemala.

 

[ShinNL]

Bad wording. I'm not talking about her particular case. I'm arguing with the idea that somehow, because it wasn't robbery, it wasn't a crime. She deserved 2 years and could have gotten 5 plus fines.

This law is so clear even though she shouldn't have went to jail according to attorneys since it was deemed unconstitutional soon after she was jailed.

 

[Devolution]

Her coming into this country doesn't happen in a void or vacuum. People rail on about illegal immigrants and completely disregard how the U.S.A. has economically fucked the places they're coming from. NAFTA and our economic/political sabotage of Latin/South American countries has created these scores of people vying to get into our country for work.

I bring this up because I'm rather tired of how ignorant Americans are of their nation's culpability in these countries being corrupt and in dire economic straits.

It's so easy to be born and raised the U.S., with so much potential and so many possibilities, then spit on people who try to come here for those same opportunities. Stop being ignorant self-righteous jerks and realize that illegals entering is an effect not a root cause. The root cause (which is the economic disparity in other countries, oh and NAFTA being a big pile of bullshit) is what truly needs to be addressed.

 

[JGS]

Her coming into this country doesn't happen in a void or vacuum. People rail on about illegal immigrants and completely disregard how the U.S.A. has economically fucked the places they're coming from. NAFTA and our economic/political sabotage of Latin/South American countries has created these scores of people vying to get into our country for work.

I bring this up because I'm rather tired of how ignorant Americans are of their nation's culpability in these countries being corrupt and in dire economic straits.

It's so easy to be born and raised the U.S., with so much potential and so many possibilities, then spit on people who try to come here for those same opportunities. Stop being ignorant self-righteous jerks and realize that illegals entering is an effect not a root cause. The root cause (which is the economic disparity in other countries, oh and NAFTA being a big pile of bullshit) is what truly needs to be addressed.

Ignorance has nothing to do with it and there is far more corruption wihtin those countries than anything the US could introduce.

It's not the fault of the US that the other countries' didn't take advantage of the benefits of trade agreements that clearly would have helped them. Everyone wanted it and it didn't seem to hurt Canada too much.

There's certainly an economic issue here as a root issue, but still does not excuse illegal immigration. That issue isn't that the typical American wouldn't like it which is completely normal. The big issue is that the countries in question don't actually care about their people leaving since it still leads to money being brought in. That's not the US' problem.

The funny thing is that a lot of this could be fixed just by a simple registration process that people inexplicably are against.

This law is so clear even though she shouldn't have went to jail according to attorneys since it was deemed unconstitutional soon after she was jailed.

Why was a fake ID unconstituional?

 

[Devolution]

Ignorance has nothing to do with it and there is far more corruption wihtin those countries than anything the US could introduce.

What does this even mean. Are you not aware of our CIA incursions and usurping of leadership within Latin America and South America?

It's not the fault of the US that the other countries' didn't take advantage of the benefits of trade agreements that clearly would have helped them. Everyone wanted it and it didn't seem to hurt Canada too much.

Everyone wanted it. Just like everyone wants the WTO and its affiliates right? I'm sure the Mexican and Latin american peoples were thrilled when we turned around and subsidized our corn farmers only to screw them over.

There's certainly an economic issue here as a root issue, but still does not excuse illegal immigration. That issue isn't that the typical American wouldn't like it which is completely normal. The big issue is that the countries in question don't actually care about their people leaving since it still leads to money being brought in. That's not the US' problem.

Typical American. We didn't do anything. These countries have to fend for themselves. Just so ignorant.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Her coming into this country doesn't happen in a void or vacuum. People rail on about illegal immigrants and completely disregard how the U.S.A. has economically fucked the places they're coming from. NAFTA and our economic/political sabotage of Latin/South American countries has created these scores of people vying to get into our country for work.

I bring this up because I'm rather tired of how ignorant Americans are of their nation's culpability in these countries being corrupt and in dire economic straits.

It's so easy to be born and raised the U.S., with so much potential and so many possibilities, then spit on people who try to come here for those same opportunities. Stop being ignorant self-righteous jerks and realize that illegals entering is an effect not a root cause. The root cause (which is the economic disparity in other countries, oh and NAFTA being a big pile of bullshit) is what truly needs to be addressed.

Seriously. The fact that people would risk their lives and their families to come here to CLEAN FUCKING TOILETS for minimum wage should tell you how shitty things are back where they came from. And you expect them to sit around for 10 years to wait for the proper immigration channels to kick in? And what do they do in the mean time? Starve?

 

[DR2K]

Really? So we start taking kids away from parents for minor violations? What's next, get a speeding ticket and they take away your kids?

This sets a dangerous precedent. I see no solution other than to give back the child to his mother, even though it'll be hell for the adoptive parents.

Crossing the border repeatedly illegally is a minor violation?